Hubbry Logo
Nectar robbingNectar robbingMain
Open search
Nectar robbing
Community hub
Nectar robbing
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nectar robbing
Nectar robbing
Nectar robbing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Bombus terrestris stealing nectar

Nectar robbing is a foraging behavior used by some organisms that feed on floral nectar, carried out by feeding from holes bitten in flowers, rather than by entering through the flowers' natural openings. Nectar robbers usually feed in this way, avoiding contact with the floral reproductive structures, and therefore do not facilitate plant reproduction via pollination. Because many species that act as pollinators also act as nectar robbers, nectar robbing is considered to be a form of exploitation of plant-pollinator mutualism. While there is variation in the dependency on nectar for robber species, most species rob facultatively (that is, to supplement their diets, rather than as an absolute necessity). The terms nectar theft and floral larceny have also been used in literature.

Nectar robbers vary greatly in species diversity and include species of carpenter bees, bumblebees, stingless Trigona bees, solitary bees, wasps, ants, hummingbirds, and some passerine birds, including flowerpiercers.[1] Nectar-robbing mammals include the fruit bat[2] and Swinhoe's striped squirrel, which rob nectar from the ginger plant.[3]

History

[edit]

Records of nectar robbing in nature date back at least to 1793, when German naturalist Christian Konrad Sprengel observed bumblebees perforating flowers.[4] This was recorded in his book, The Secret of Nature in the Form and Fertilization of Flowers Discovered, which was written in Berlin. Charles Darwin observed bumblebees stealing nectar from flowers in 1859.[4] These observations were published in his book The Origin of Species.

Forms of floral larceny

[edit]
A female mountain carpenter bee robbing nectar from pineapple sage salvia without providing pollination services. The last scene played at one-fourth speed.

Nectar robbing is specifically the behavior of consuming nectar from a perforation (robbing hole) in the floral tissue rather than from the floral opening. There are two main types of nectar robbing: primary robbing, which requires that the nectar forager perforate the floral tissues itself, and secondary robbing, which is foraging from a robbing hole created by a primary robber.[5]

The former is performed most often on flowers whose nectar is concealed or hard to reach. For instance, long flowers with tubular corollas are prone to robbing. Secondary robbers often do not have suitable mouth parts to be able to create penetrations into the flowers themselves, nor to reach the nectar without robbing it. Thus they take advantage of the perforations already made by other organisms to be able to steal the nectar. For example, short-tongued bees such as the early bumblebee (Bombus pratorum) are unable to reach the nectar located at the base of long flowers such as comfreys. In order to access the nectar, the bee will enter the flower through a hole bitten at the base, stealing the nectar without aiding in pollination. Birds are mostly primary robbers and typically use their beaks to penetrate the corolla tissue of flower petals. The upper mandible is used to hold the flower while the lower mandible creates the hole and extracts the nectar. While this is the most common method employed by bird species, some steal nectar in a more aggressive manner. For example, bullfinches reach the nectar by completely tearing the corolla off from the calyx. Mammal robbers such as the striped squirrel chew holes at the base of the flower and then consume the nectar.[6]

The term "floral larceny" has been proposed to include the entire suite of foraging behaviors for floral rewards that can potentially disrupt pollination.[7] They include "nectar theft" (floral visits that remove nectar from the floral opening without pollinating the flower), and "base working" (removing nectar from in between petals, which generally bypasses floral reproductive structures).[5] Individual organisms may exhibit mixed behaviors, combining legitimate pollination and nectar robbing, or primary and secondary robbing. Nectar robbing rates can also greatly vary temporally and spatially. The abundance of nectar robbing can fluctuate based on the season or even within a season. This inconsistency displayed in nectar robbing makes it difficult to label certain species as "thieves" and complicates research on the ecological phenomenon of nectar robbing.[4]

Effects on plant fitness

[edit]
Biting open the base of a flower...
...and using its tongue to drink the nectar.
A bumblebee "nectar robbing" a flower

Pollination systems are mostly mutualistic, meaning that the plant benefits from the pollinator's transport of male gametes and the pollinator benefits from a reward, such as pollen or nectar.[1] As nectar robbers receive the rewards without direct contact with the reproductive parts of the flower, their behaviour is easily assumed to be cheating. However, the effect of robbery on the plant is sometimes neutral or even positive.[1][8][9][10] For example, the proboscis of Eurybia elvina does not come in contact with the reproductive parts of the flower in Calathea ovandensis, but this does not lead to significant reduction in fruit-set of the plant.[11] In another example, when 80 percent of the flowers in a study site were robbed and the robbers did not pollinate, neither the seed nor fruit set were negatively affected.[12]

The effect of floral-nectar robbing on plant fitness depends on several issues. Firstly, nectar robbers, such as carpenter bees, bumble bees and some birds, can pollinate flowers.[1] Pollination may take place when the body of the robber contacts the reproductive parts of the plant while it robs, or during pollen collection which some bees practice in concert with nectar robbing.[1][13] The impact of Trigona bees (e.g. Trigona ferricauda) on a plant is almost always negative, probably because their aggressive territorial behaviour effectively evicts legitimate pollinators.[14] Nectar robbers may change the behaviour of legitimate pollinators in other ways, such as by reducing the amount of nectar available. This may force pollinators to visit more flowers in their nectar foraging. The increased number of flowers visited and longer flight distances increase pollen flow and outcrossing, which is beneficial for the plant because it lessens inbreeding depression.[1] This requires a robber's not completely consuming all of a flower's nectar. When a robber consumes all of a flower's nectar, legitimate pollinators may avoid the flower, resulting in a negative effect on plant fitness.[1]

The response of different species of legitimate pollinators also varies. Some species, like the bumble bees Bombus appositus or B. occidentalis and many species of nectar-feeding birds can distinguish between robbed and unrobbed plants and minimize their energy cost of foraging by avoiding heavily robbed flowers.[13][15] Pollinating birds may be better at this than insects, because of their higher sensory capability.[1] The ways that bees distinguish between robbed and unrobbed flowers have not been studied, but they have been thought to be related to the damage on petal tissue after robbery or changes in nectar quality.[13] Xylocopa sonorina steals nectar through a slit they make in the base of the petals. If nectar robbing severely reduces the success of legitimate pollinators they may be able to switch to other nectar sources.[1]

The functionality of flowers can be curtailed by nectar robbers that severely maim the flower by shortening their life span. Damaged flowers are less attractive and thus can lead to a decrease in visit frequency as pollinators practice avoidance of robbed flowers and favor intact flowers. Nectar robbers that diminish the volume of nectar in flowers may also leave behind their odor which causes a decrease in visitation frequency by legitimate pollinators. Nectar robbing can also cause plants to reallocate resources from reproduction and growth to replenishing the stolen nectar, which can be costly to produce for some plants.[4]

Nectar robbing, especially by birds,[16] can damage the reproductive parts of a flower and thus diminish the fitness of a plant.[9] In this case, the effect of robbery on a plant is direct. A good example of an indirect effect is the change in the behaviour of a legitimate pollinator, which either increases or decreases the fitness of a plant. There are both primary and secondary nectar robbers.[1] Secondary robbers are those that take advantage of the holes made by primary robbers. While most flies and bees are secondary robbers, some species, such as Bombylius major, act as primary robbers.[16]

The effect of robbing is positive if the robber also pollinates or increases the pollination by the legitimate pollinator, and negative if the robber damages the reproductive parts of a plant or reduces pollination success, either by competing with the legitimate pollinator or by lessening the attractiveness of the flower.[13][17] Positive reproductive results may occur from nectar robbing if the robbers act as pollinators during the same or different visit. The holes created by primary robbers may attract more secondary robbers that commonly search for nectar and collect pollen from anthers during the same visit. Additionally, certain dense arrangements of flowers allow pollen to be transferred when robber birds pierce holes into flowers to access the nectar. Thus, plant reproduction can potentially be boosted from nectar robbing due to the increase in potential pollen vectors.[18] Distinguishing between a legitimate pollinator and a nectar robber can be difficult.[19]

Evolutionary implications

[edit]
Hummingbird hovering besides the flower of the plant Amphilophium elongatum, extending its bill inside the flower from the side
Close-up of the hole at the base of the flower used to assess the nectar
Female of a hummingbird, the horned sungem, robbing nectar from the plant Amphilophium elongatum (top), and hole used to obtain the nectar (bottom, red circle)

Pollination systems cause coevolution, as in the close relationships between figs and fig wasps as well as yuccas and yucca moths.[20][21] If nectar robbers have an effect (direct or indirect) on a plant or pollinator fitness, they are part of the coevolution process.[1] Where nectar robbing is detrimental to the plant, a plant species might evolve to minimize the traits that attract the robbers or develop some type of protective mechanism to hinder them.[1][7] Another option is to try to neutralize negative effects of nectar robbers. Nectar robbers are adapted for more efficient nectar robbing: for instance, hummingbirds and Diglossa flowerpiercers have serrated bills that are thought to aid them in incising flower tissue for nectar robbing.[22]

Nectar robbers may only get food in illegitimate ways because of the mismatch between the morphologies of their mouthparts and the floral structure; or they may rob nectar as a more energy-saving way to get nectar from flowers.[23]

It is not completely clear how pollination mutualisms persist in the presence of cheating nectar robbers. Nevertheless, as exploitation is not always harmful for the plant, the relationship may be able to endure some cheating. Mutualism may simply confer a higher payoff than nectar robbing.[19] Some studies have shown that nectar robbing does not have a significant negative effect on the reproductive success of both male and female plants.[18]

Defences in flowering plants

[edit]

Even though there has not been much research on the defences evolved in plants against nectar robbers, the adaptations have been assumed not to rise from traits used in interactions between plants and herbivores (especially florivores). Some defences may have evolved through traits originally referred to pollination. Defences against nectar robbers have been thought to include toxins and secondary compounds, escape in time or space, physical barriers and indirect defences.[7]

Toxins and secondary compounds are likely to act as a defence against nectar robbing because they are often found in floral nectar or petal tissue. There is some evidence that secondary compounds in nectar only affect nectar robbers and not the pollinators.[7] One example is a plant called Catalpa speciosa which produces nectar containing iridoid glycosides that deter nectar-thieving ants but not legitimate bee pollinators.[24] Low sugar concentration in nectar may also deter nectar robbers without deterring pollinators because dilute nectar does not yield net energy profits for robbers.[7]

If robbers and pollinators forage at different times of day, plants may produce nectar according to the active period of a legitimate pollinator.[7] This is an example of a defence by escaping in time. Another way to use time in defence is to flower only for one day as a tropical shrub Pavonia dasypetala does to avoid the robbing Trigona bees.[14] Escaping in space refers to a situation in which plant avoids being robbed by growing in a certain location like next to a plant which is more attractive to the robbers.[7]

The last two methods of protection are physical barriers and indirect defence like symbionts. Tightly packed flowers and unfavourably sized corolla tubes, bract liquid moats and toughness of the corolla or sepal are barriers for some nectar robbers. A good example of an indirect defence is to attract symbiotic predators (like ants) by nectar or other rewards to scare away the robbers.[7]

The term 'resistance' refers to the plant's ability to live and reproduce in spite of nectar robbers. This may happen, for example, by compensating the lost nectar by producing more. With the help of defence and resistance, mutualisms can persist even in the presence of cheaters.[7]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nectar robbing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Nectar robbing is a foraging behavior in which floral visitors, such as bees, birds, and mammals, access and consume nectar by creating perforations or holes in floral tissues like the corolla, spurs, or calyx, thereby bypassing the flower's legitimate entry points and often failing to achieve pollination. This tactic exploits the plant-pollinator mutualism, allowing robbers to harvest rewards without reciprocal benefits like pollen transfer. The behavior is prevalent across diverse taxa and ecosystems, with bees (particularly bumblebees and ) being the most common robbers, alongside birds like flower-piercers (Diglossa spp.) and occasionally mammals. It affects a wide variety of plant species featuring hidden or recessed in tubular corollas or spurs, such as red (Trifolium pratense), (Sesamum radiatum), and mistletoes ( longebracteatus), where robbing can occur in up to 100% of flowers on individual plants. Robbers often exhibit tactic constancy, repeatedly using the same perforation method due to sensory cues and learned associations, which influences their efficiency and the ecological dynamics of flower visitation. Ecologically, nectar robbing's impacts on plants are context-dependent and multifaceted, ranging from detrimental to beneficial depending on factors like the robber's morphology, plant mating system, and community composition. Negative effects include depleted nectar rewards that deter legitimate pollinators, reduced seed set in self-incompatible , and potential damage to floral integrity, as seen in cases where heavily robbed flowers receive fewer pollinator visits. Conversely, robbers can inadvertently pollinate through body contact with anthers or stigmas, enhance by altering pollen flow, or have neutral outcomes in autogamous (self-pollinating) plants, where maternal reproduction remains unaffected while pollinator efficiency improves. Across 18 reviewed studies, effects on and set were equally distributed as negative, neutral, or positive, highlighting nectar robbing's role as both a cheat and a potential mutualist in pollination networks.

Introduction

Definition

Nectar robbing refers to a form of floral exploitation in which animals access and consume from flowers without facilitating , typically by damaging the floral structures to create unauthorized entry points. This behavior allows the exploiter to bypass the flower's natural architecture, extracting rewards intended for pollinators while avoiding contact with or stigmas. In contrast to legitimate pollination, where visitors such as bees or birds enter flowers through designated openings—often leading to inadvertent transfer between —nectar robbers deliberately circumvent these reproductive structures, thereby providing no mutual benefit to the . Legitimate pollinators engage in a reciprocal interaction that supports , whereas robbing represents a one-sided exploitation that can deplete resources without contributing to fertilization. The basic process of nectar robbing involves animals, such as certain or birds, piercing or biting holes in the corolla or other floral parts, usually near the base close to the nectary, to directly access the . These perforations enable efficient extraction but often result in structural damage to the flower, potentially reducing its attractiveness to pollinators or increasing vulnerability to further exploitation. The terminology "nectar robbing" was formalized in the ecological literature to highlight the larcenous nature of this interaction, analogous to theft, as it deprives plants of resources without reciprocal services like . This term, part of a broader of floral , underscores the evolutionary implications of such non-mutualistic behaviors in plant-animal interactions.

Overview of Floral Larceny

Floral larceny encompasses the exploitation of floral rewards, such as or , by animals that do not facilitate , thereby bypassing the mutualistic exchange between and their pollinators. This behavior represents a form of in plant-pollinator interactions, where animals gain access to resources without providing the reciprocal service of pollen transfer. Within floral larceny, key categories include nectar robbing, nectar theft (or thieving), and pollen theft. Nectar robbing involves animals creating or using perforations in floral structures to extract without , often damaging the flower; nectar theft occurs when animals access through legitimate openings but fail to contact stigmas or anthers due to morphological mismatches; pollen theft entails direct collection of without subsequent transfer to other flowers. Nectar robbing stands out as a primary form, frequently observed in with long-tubed flowers adapted for specialized pollinators. In the ecological context of mutualistic systems, floral larceny arises as evolve traits to attract pollinators—such as colorful displays and sugary rewards—but inadvertently invite cheaters that exploit these investments without contributing to . These interactions can disrupt the balance of mutualisms by reducing available rewards for true pollinators and imposing costs on , including potential physical damage to flowers. Such cheating is particularly prevalent in habitats with diverse floral visitors, where evolutionary pressures may drive plant defenses like tougher corollas or toxin-laced . The prevalence of floral larceny varies by habitat and plant community but is documented in 15-20% of plant species across surveyed ecosystems, with robbing affecting about 15% and theft around 20% in one broad analysis of 195 species. In terms of interaction frequency, larcenous visits constitute approximately 4-6% of total floral visits in monitored populations, though rates can escalate in disturbed or nectar-rich environments. This variability underscores its role as a context-dependent antagonist in global pollination networks.

Historical Background

Early Observations

One of the earliest documented observations of nectar robbing dates back to the late , but 19th-century naturalists provided more detailed accounts. Christian Konrad Sprengel noted bumblebees perforating nectar spurs in flowers in 1793, describing the behavior as a form of unauthorized extraction. However, offered some of the most influential early descriptions in the mid-19th century. In a 1841 letter published in the Gardeners' Chronicle, Darwin reported humble-bees (bumblebees) boring holes in flowers to extract directly, speculating on whether this was an instinctive or learned behavior. He expanded on this in his 1859 book , noting the general habit of bees cutting holes and sucking the nectar at the bases of certain flowers to save time, while emphasizing that bumblebees play an indispensable role in legitimately pollinating flowers like heartsease () by entering the corolla. These observations were primarily made in European contexts, such as gardens and wildflower patches in , where bumblebees were frequently seen interacting with tubular or spurred flowers like those of the and families. Darwin's accounts focused on Bombus species as the primary robbers, noting how they bypassed the flower's intended entry point to shortcut access. Similar reports emerged from other naturalists, including , who in his 1873 work on flower fertilization described bees piercing corollas in various European wildflowers, emphasizing the prevalence of such behaviors in temperate ecosystems. These early records highlighted bees as the dominant nectar robbers in observed settings, with little attention to other taxa. The term "nectar robbing" began appearing in entomological literature around the , building on these descriptive accounts to denote the specific act of perforating flowers for without . Prior to this, naturalists like Darwin used phrases such as "stealing " or "biting holes," reflecting a metaphorical view of the as larcenous. This emerging terminology helped distinguish robbing from legitimate in scientific discussions. Early recognition of nectar robbing faced challenges due to the limitations of observational tools available at the time, such as reliance on naked-eye sightings without or controlled experiments. This often led to confusion with behaviors, as robbers sometimes carried incidentally, blurring the line between mutualism and antagonism in anecdotal reports. Without methods to track transfer or nectar depletion systematically, naturalists struggled to assess the ecological implications, viewing the phenomenon more as a than a distinct interaction type.

Key Developments in Research

In the early to mid-20th century, research on nectar robbing advanced through field studies that quantified its frequency among bee species, marking a shift from anecdotal observations to systematic documentation. E. Gorton Linsley's work in the 1950s, for instance, highlighted high levels of nectar robbing by solitary bees across diverse ecosystems, providing early quantitative insights into behavioral patterns and ecological prevalence. Mid-century studies, such as those by A.L. Grant on floral larceny in hybrid zones, further explored evolutionary contexts of the behavior. During the 1970s and 1990s, studies transitioned to experimental , employing exclusion experiments to assess impacts on and dynamics. R.S. Fritz and D.H. Morse's 1981 research demonstrated how nectar robbing by reduced pollen export and seed set in , establishing causal links through controlled manipulations. Similarly, Rebecca E. Irwin and Alison K. Brody's 1998 experiments on Ipomopsis aggregata revealed that heavy robbing decreased visitation and female fitness, underscoring the variable but often negative effects on host plants. The 2000s introduced molecular and genetic approaches to dissect robber-pollinator interactions, with enabling precise identification of floral visitors and loads. These techniques, pioneered in , allowed researchers to trace robbing behaviors without morphological ambiguity, revealing overlaps between robbers and legitimate pollinators in shared networks. For example, analyses of via barcoding highlighted how robbers inadvertently transfer , complicating their role in . Recent trends from 2023 to 2025 have integrated spatiotemporal modeling to explore environmental influences on robbing rates, particularly under stressors like . simulations in intercropped systems predict increased robbing under projected scenarios, emphasizing the need for predictive frameworks in conservation.

Mechanisms and Forms

Primary Nectar Robbing

Primary nectar robbing refers to the behavior in which animals initiate access to floral by physically damaging the flower, typically by creating holes or slits in the corolla, sepals, or petals to bypass the legitimate entry point and avoid contact with the plant's reproductive structures. This form of floral is distinct from legitimate , as robbers extract rewards without facilitating transfer. Common perpetrators include strong-jawed and birds with piercing mouthparts, which target flowers with inaccessible nectar reservoirs, such as long-tubed or spurred species. The process involves targeted perforation near the nectary, often at the flower base, using specialized tools like mandibles, beaks, or proboscises. For example, bumblebees (Bombus spp.) employ their robust mandibles to chew precise holes in the corolla bases of long-tubed flowers such as Delphinium nelsonii or broad bean (Vicia faba), allowing direct insertion of the proboscis for nectar extraction. Similarly, nectar-robbing birds like flowerpiercers (Diglossa spp.) use hooked beaks to slit the sides of tubular corollas in species such as Ipomopsis aggregata, while some bees may probe and puncture with their mouthparts. These techniques enable efficient nectar removal without navigating floral barriers designed for pollinators. Robbers gain key advantages from this direct approach, including quicker access to nectar and circumvention of structural obstacles like elongated corollas, which can impede legitimate visitors. This results in increased energy efficiency; bumblebees, for instance, achieve greater energetic profitability compared to through the flower's natural opening. Such benefits make primary robbing particularly advantageous for species with mismatched morphology, such as short-tongued bees on deep flowers. The immediate consequences for the flower include structural compromise from the perforations, depleting standing rewards and exposing the plant to environmental stressors, while overall weakening of the floral architecture can impair its integrity and functionality.

Secondary Nectar Robbing

Secondary nectar robbing occurs when animals access floral nectar through pre-existing holes or slits created by primary robbers, typically located at the base of the corolla near the nectary, thereby bypassing the legitimate floral entrance without inflicting additional damage to the plant. This process allows secondary robbers, often smaller or birds incapable of piercing the corolla themselves, to exploit the damage initiated by others, extracting more efficiently than through legitimate pathways. Unlike primary robbing, secondary robbing requires no mechanical effort to create access points, making it a low-cost opportunistic strategy that depends on the prior activity of primary robbers. Secondary robbers detect these holes primarily through visual cues, such as the appearance of perforations that may resemble natural markings like dots on flowers, or olfactory signals from exposed scents emanating from the damage. Learning plays a key role, as foragers can associate these cues with rewarding sources over repeated visits, enhancing their efficiency in locating exploited flowers. This detection mechanism can trigger "robbing cascades" within populations, where the proliferation of holes encourages more individuals to switch to robbing behaviors, amplifying the overall exploitation in a floral patch. Legitimate pollinators may also opportunistically turn to secondary robbing when holes are available, prioritizing energy gain over services. In terms of , secondary nectar robbing is often more common than primary robbing in high-density floral patches, based on field observations from the that highlight its dependence on initial damage accumulation. This disparity arises because once holes are established, they facilitate repeated access by multiple visitors, leading to higher overall robbing rates in dense aggregations where primary events are more likely to occur. Such patterns underscore the cascading nature of robbing interactions in natural settings.

Participants

Common Nectar Robbers

Nectar robbing is predominantly carried out by , particularly bees from the genera Bombus and Xylocopa, which comprise the majority of documented cases among floral visitors. Bumblebees (Bombus spp.), such as B. terrestris and B. occidentalis, are versatile robbers capable of both primary robbing—where they use their toothed mandibles or maxillae to bite holes in corolla tubes—and secondary robbing through existing perforations made by others. These adaptations allow bumblebees to access nectar in flowers with long corollas that exceed their tongue length, bypassing reproductive structures without effecting . Carpenter bees (Xylocopa spp.), including species like X. virginica, are primarily primary robbers, employing their strong mandibles and maxillae to create precise slits in floral tissue, often targeting tubular flowers where legitimate access is challenging. Vertebrate nectar robbers include certain birds adapted for piercing floral bases, with hummingbirds (Trochilidae) and sunbirds (Nectariniidae) representing key groups. Among hummingbirds, species in 28 genera possess serrate tomia—saw-like edges on the beak hypothesized to aid in cutting tough corollas for nectar robbing, as exhibited by species such as Anthracothorax nigricollis. (Calypte anna), for instance, pierces the bases of long-tubed flowers to access when legitimate foraging is inefficient. Sunbirds, like the (Cinnyris osea), use their curved, needle-like beaks to puncture corolla tubes, extracting without pollinating. These morphological traits enable secondary access in many cases, exploiting holes initially made by . In terms of , nectar robbers often learn the technique through social observation and cognitive decision-making influenced by sensory biases. Bumblebees, for example, acquire robbing behaviors via social transmission within colonies, where naive individuals observe and imitate experienced piercing flowers, accelerating the spread of the tactic across groups. Sensory preferences, such as attraction to dark spots resembling robber holes, further bias bees toward illegitimate over legitimate . Studies from highlight how variable environmental cues and prior experience shape these cognitive choices in bees, with robbers weighing energy rewards against handling times. Nectar robbing occurs globally across temperate and tropical regions, with higher in areas where floral accessibility constraints limit legitimate . Bumblebees engage in robbing in approximately 28% of secondary interaction records, reflecting its commonality in their repertoire. This behavior is documented in over 59 plant families worldwide, excluding , and is more frequent in tropical communities where long-tubed flowers abound, though it remains significant in temperate zones with bumblebee dominance.

Affected Plant Species

Nectar robbing primarily affects plant species with concealed nectar resources, such as those featuring deep tubular corollas or spurs that hinder access by short-tongued pollinators. Common families susceptible to this exploitation include , , and Orchidaceae, where floral architecture favors robbing over legitimate visitation. For example, species in the genus (Lamiaceae), characterized by elongated corollas, are frequently robbed by bumblebees and other insects that chew holes at the base to extract nectar without contacting reproductive structures. Similarly, legumes in , such as Collaea cipoensis, an endemic shrub in Brazilian montane regions, experience high rates of primary nectar robbing by bees, leading to perforations in up to a substantial proportion of flowers. In Orchidaceae, orchids like Platanthera praeclara, a rare North American prairie species, are vulnerable to robbing by bumblebees that bite into nectar spurs, bypassing . Vulnerability to nectar robbing is strongly influenced by floral traits, including the depth of corolla tubes and the volume of produced, which create barriers for legitimate foragers while attracting robbers seeking efficient access. Plants with these features, such as (Orobanchaceae), a hemiparasitic herb, often exhibit robbing in a significant portion of flowers—up to nearly all in some populations—by short-tongued bumblebees that puncture the corolla base. High volumes further exacerbate susceptibility, as they provide a rewarding target without requiring contact, particularly in species where is recessed beyond typical tongue lengths. Geographically, nectar robbing impacts temperate herbaceous plants in and , including Rhinanthus minor in British meadows and Salvia species in North American prairies, where bumblebee robbers dominate. In tropical , vines and shrubs like Collaea cipoensis in Brazilian highlands face similar pressures from stingless bees and other robbers adapted to dense floral arrays. These patterns highlight how regional pollinator communities and floral densities shape robbing prevalence across biomes. Robbing rates vary between annual and perennial species, with annuals often experiencing more severe proportional damage due to limited compensatory flowering, whereas perennials may sustain higher absolute losses across multiple seasons.

Ecological Effects

Impacts on Plant Fitness

Nectar robbing often negatively impacts female plant fitness by depleting resources, which deters legitimate pollinators and reduces seed set. In pollen-limited such as Delphinium nuttallianum, experimental complete robbing decreased the percentage of seed set by 22% and total seed production by 49% compared to unrobbed controls. Similarly, high robbing levels in Ipomopsis aggregata can reduce seeds produced by up to 50%, primarily through indirect effects where pollinators avoid robbed flowers. Across multiple studies, robbing intensities of 20-80% have been associated with seed set declines ranging from 20% to 60% in various herbaceous plants, highlighting the scale of reproductive costs in pollinator-dependent systems. Male fitness is similarly compromised by nectar robbing, as fewer legitimate visits lead to lower pollen export and siring success. In Ipomopsis aggregata, heavy robbing reduced the number of seeds sired by up to 56%, reflecting diminished pollen dispersal due to altered pollinator behavior. Robbers occasionally contact anthers, enabling incidental pollen theft, but this rarely compensates for the overall reduction in effective pollen transfer. However, outcomes vary; in Lonicera etrusca, robbing had no significant effect on pollen export quantity or dispersal distance, suggesting context-dependent impacts based on floral morphology and pollinator responses. Direct physical damage from robbing holes contributes to flower and potential s, further eroding plant fitness. Piercing the corolla or calyx can induce resource reallocation or structural failure, potentially leading to increased flower in some . Such wounds also heighten risks from and fungi, as exposed facilitates microbial entry and proliferation, potentially shortening flower lifespan and reducing viable ovules by compromising floral integrity. While predominantly negative, nectar robbing effects on plant fitness can be neutral or positive in certain scenarios. In selfing plants like Sesamum radiatum, robbing at rates up to 62% had no significant impact on seed set, as autogamous sustains despite nectar loss. Robbing can increase in some species by prompting pollinators to forage across greater distances, enhancing without overall fitness costs. These variable outcomes underscore the interplay of systems and ecological context in modulating robbing's net impact. A 2024 confirmed predominantly negative but context-dependent effects on .

Effects on Pollinators and Ecosystems

Nectar robbing often deters legitimate by depleting floral rewards, leading to reduced visitation rates. Studies have shown that floral damage associated with robbing can decrease visits by approximately 20% overall, with more pronounced effects in certain plant morphs where visits drop by up to 42%. A of manipulative experiments indicates an average 26% reduction in visitation to robbed flowers, alongside decreased handling times and increased flight distances between flowers. In spatiotemporal observations from 2014 to 2020 in , high robbing intensity in castanea populations correlated with drastic declines in visits, sometimes falling from over 30 visits per flower per day to fewer than 1 in heavily robbed patches. Nectar robbers compete with pollinators for limited resources, potentially exacerbating interference in resource-scarce environments, while facilitation occurs in cases where robbing indirectly promotes pollen transfer. bees and acting as robbers can constrain legitimate by removing up to 100% of nectar in high-elevation sites, maintaining stable but low pollinator visitation rates that fail to meet needs. Conversely, by reducing nectar availability, robbers may force pollinators to forage over greater distances, inadvertently increasing rates and altering visitation patterns without direct pollen contact. Such dynamics highlight robbing as a form of exploitative within mutualistic interactions, though secondary robbers occasionally contact reproductive structures, providing limited facilitative benefits. At the ecosystem level, nectar robbing alters plant-pollinator network structure and may contribute to biodiversity declines, particularly in fragmented or high-elevation landscapes. In Afrotropical forests, robbing and thieving account for about 6% of flower-visitor interactions across diverse plant communities, with cheaters influencing network modularity through trait-based preferences that favor certain floral morphologies. These interactions can propagate cascading effects in mutualistic networks, where the loss of efficient pollinators due to resource depletion heightens vulnerability to extinctions in biodiversity hotspots. In fragmented habitats, intensified robbing pressures may disrupt network stability, reducing overall pollination services and favoring generalist species over specialists. Indirect effects of nectar robbing extend to broader food webs by modifying nectar quality and availability, influencing non-pollinator taxa. Robbing can alter nectar microbial communities, either directly through introduced microbes or indirectly via plant responses, potentially affecting nectar attractiveness to secondary consumers like predatory . Reduced nectar volumes in robbed systems may cascade to diminish food resources for nectar-dependent predators, altering trophic interactions and community composition. These changes underscore robbing's role in reshaping ecological dynamics beyond direct plant-pollinator links.

Evolutionary Implications

Plant Evolution

Nectar robbing exerts significant selective pressures on plant floral morphology, favoring traits that deter unauthorized nectar access while preserving efficiency. Experimental evidence demonstrates that flowers with longer corollas are preferentially robbed by short-billed hummingbirds, resulting in higher rates of nectar extraction without and subsequent reductions in production. In contrast, short-corolla flowers experience minimal robbing, suggesting that robbing selects against elongated floral tubes in affected populations. For instance, in studies involving species and hederifolia, robbing rates were negligible on 's short corollas (18.7–21.3 mm) but substantial on ’s longer ones (30.2 mm), with robbed flowers yielding fewer s than legitimately pollinated ones. This pattern implies evolutionary shortening of corollas in lineages exposed to frequent robbing, as the fitness costs of vulnerability outweigh benefits for specialist pollinators. Such selective forces contribute to a coevolutionary between and nectar robbers, where adapt to minimize exploitative losses without fully compromising mutualistic interactions. may evolve reinforced floral structures, such as tougher corolla tissues, to resist piercing by robbers' mouthparts, balancing defense against exploitation with for legitimate . This dynamic is evident in geographic variation, where populations in high-robbing environments exhibit greater resistance through subtle morphological shifts, though these can inadvertently reduce visits and overall reproductive success. The interplay underscores how robbing disrupts traditional plant- , prompting to refine traits like corolla depth and tissue resilience over generations. Genetic evidence supports the of these anti-robbing adaptations, with quantitative trait loci (QTL) studies post-2010 identifying genomic regions linked to variation in floral traits that influence robbing susceptibility. These QTL often control corolla length and production, revealing a polygenic basis for resistance that allows rapid evolutionary responses in robbed populations.

Animal Evolution

Nectar robbing has driven the evolution of specialized morphological adaptations in various animal lineages, particularly in bees and birds, enabling efficient exploitation of floral resources without pollination. In bumblebees (Bombus spp.), short proboscis length in certain lineages, such as Bombus occidentalis, favors nectar robbing as an alternative to legitimate foraging on long-tubed flowers, with strong mandibles facilitating the creation of entry holes through corolla or calyx tissues. Similarly, in the mining bee Andrena lathyri, the maxillae exhibit sclerotized galeae tightly linked for precise nectar extraction via self-made slits, representing one of the few documented morphological specializations for primary robbing in bees. Among birds, hummingbirds (Trochilidae) have independently evolved serrate tomia—saw-like edges on the bill cutting edges—in 23% of genera (69 species), aiding in piercing tough corollas for nectar access, as seen in species like Anthracothorax nigricollis robbing Tabebuia serratifolia. These adaptations often arise convergently, mirroring those in flower-piercing finches (Diglossa spp.), and reflect selective pressures from plant defenses. Behavioral evolution in nectar robbers balances innate predispositions with learned strategies, shaping in dynamic contexts. Innate sensory biases, such as bumblebees' for blue-violet floral cues, initially direct individuals toward potential robbing sites, while instrumental learning refines hole placement and tactic selection based on prior rewards. Studies on demonstrate that robbing is not purely innate; bees shift from exploratory biting to efficient secondary robbing (using existing holes) after observing conspecifics, with social transmission accelerating adoption across colonies. Cognitive ecology research highlights task-switching costs and memory in deciding between robbing and legitimate , where variable availability promotes flexibility; for instance, experienced bees bias toward robbing after encountering low-reward legitimate flowers. In hummingbirds, similar learned behaviors emerge, with short-billed species like wedge-billed hummingbirds (Schistes geoffroyi) specializing in robbing sicklebill-adapted flowers, exploiting mismatches in corolla length. Coevolutionary dynamics between nectar robbers and plants have spurred divergence in animal traits, as robbers circumvent escalating floral defenses, leading to specialized morphs within lineages. In hummingbirds, repeated evolution of short bills and elongated hallux claws (>20 independent origins) enables "clinger" feeding styles, including nectar robbing of long-corolla flowers, which correlates with higher-elevation diversification and negative bill-foot size relationships across clades. This divergence contrasts with long-billed hover-feeders, illustrating how robbing pressures drive adaptive radiations; for example, coquette clade hummingbirds show basal robbing tendencies, influencing plant trait selection for tougher tissues or secondary metabolites like gelsemine to deter access. In bees, Bombus lineages with mismatched tongue lengths evolve behavioral robbing to exploit these defenses, potentially selecting for plant resistance traits in return. Broader evolutionary implications reveal robbing as a labile with potential transitions from antagonism to mutualism, evident in phylogenetic patterns across clades. Robbing has arisen repeatedly in phylogenies (at least 26 times for related clinging behaviors), often as a derived trait in short-billed subclades, blurring boundaries with when robbers contact reproductive structures incidentally. In bumblebees, genera like Xylocopa and Bombus exhibit robbing across diverse floral hosts, with some individuals acting as partial s, suggesting evolutionary pathways where cheating evolves from ancestral mutualism and may revert under selective pressures favoring gene flow. These patterns underscore robbing's role in shaping animal diversification, though persistent antagonism in specialized systems can limit transitions to pollinator roles.

Plant Defenses

Morphological Adaptations

Plants have evolved a range of morphological adaptations to deter nectar robbers, primarily through structural barriers that impede access to floral nectar without facilitating pollination. Long corolla tubes serve as a classic example, restricting entry to long-tongued pollinators while short-tongued species often resort to biting holes, though this may increase robbing frequency in some cases. Similarly, fused or convoluted petals can enclose the nectary, creating a physical barrier; in Strelitzia reginae, the bases of two fused petals form a protective covering over the nectary, limiting theft by sunbirds that might otherwise perforate the corolla. Thick or tough calyces further hinder perforation attempts, as seen in Pavonia dasypetala, where increased calyx thickness makes robbing by stingless bees (Trigona ferricauda) more time-consuming and energetically costly. Secondary nectaries, often extrafloral, provide an alternative strategy by diverting robbers away from primary floral rewards. In Campsis radicans, extrafloral nectaries attract predatory ants that guard the plant and deter small-bodied nectar robbers like bees, thereby protecting the main floral nectar from exploitation. Surface modifications, such as hairiness or rugose textures on corollas, can increase handling difficulty for robbers attempting to grip or bite into flowers; epidermal cell shapes in bee-pollinated species influence grip and access, potentially reducing successful robberies by altering traction on floral surfaces. Sticky corolla surfaces represent another adaptation, as in certain Erica species where resinous coatings correlate with narrow corollas and prevent perforation by robbers, with observations indicating lower robbing incidence in sticky-flowered variants. Trap-like mechanisms, including one-way entry structures in tubular flowers, allow legitimate pollinators to access while complicating exit or re-entry for robbers, though such features are less common and primarily documented in specialized trap flowers that incidentally hinder illegitimate visitors. Quantitative assessments of these adaptations show variable efficacy; for instance, long floral tubes and spurs in tropical species, though exact reductions depend on robber species and local pressures. These morphological defenses often involve trade-offs, as barriers like elongated tubes or sticky surfaces may inadvertently deter effective pollinators, potentially lowering efficiency and requiring to balance protection against reproductive costs.

Chemical Defenses

employ various chemical defenses in their and floral tissues to deter nectar robbers, primarily through secondary metabolites that render the nectar unpalatable or toxic. Alkaloids, such as nicotine in species of the genus , are concentrated in and particularly at the base of the corolla where robbers often access it, acting as a feeding deterrent. Similarly, phenolics in can repel undesirable visitors, including robbers, by altering taste or causing aversion, as observed in multiple plant-pollinator interaction studies. In response to nectar robbing, plants can induce chemical defenses, releasing higher concentrations of toxins or volatiles post-damage to further discourage repeated visits. For instance, in Nicotiana glauca, simulated robbing by sunbirds leads to an immediate increase in anabasine alkaloid levels in nectar, though nicotine remains unchanged, suggesting a targeted inducible response. Studies have explored the costs and benefits of such defensive nectar, finding that while these compounds reduce microbial contamination and robber activity, they often impose net fitness costs on plants through reduced pollinator efficiency. The effectiveness of these chemical defenses varies but has been quantified in field experiments; for example, high levels in reduce the proportion of flowers probed by robbing bees like Xylocopa by approximately 22% and decrease time spent per flower, thereby limiting overall nectar theft. Additionally, these compounds impact robber health, with in causing elevated mortality rates—nearly half of exposed bumblebees die within seven days, doubling the death rate compared to controls—potentially reducing robber populations over time. However, deploying chemical defenses carries evolutionary costs, as the energy allocated to producing alkaloids and phenolics can diminish nectar attractiveness to legitimate pollinators, leading to lower visitation rates and reduced in some species. This highlights the delicate balance must maintain between protection from robbers and promotion of .

References

  1. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.698137/full
  2. https://faculty.salisbury.edu/~jemaloof/manuscripts/Ecology.htm
  3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44741-y
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28822483/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/nectar-robbing
  6. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.4696
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/207223442_Are_Nectar_Robbers_Cheaters_or_Mutualists
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/207223510_The_Terminology_of_Floral_Larceny
  9. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecy.70036
  10. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ecs2.4696
  11. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.4696
  12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1936841
  13. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/0012-9658%282000%29081%255B2651:ANRCOM%255D2.0.CO%3B2
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/D-P-Abrol/publication/341908941_Non-Apis_Bee_Pollinators/links/5ed8e93d92851c9c5e7bb6cc/Non-Apis-Bee-Pollinators.pdf
  15. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-44822-z
  16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11829-025-10170-0
  17. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120330
  18. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120330
  19. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2008.0270
  20. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.3892
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234149092_Nectar_Robbing_Ecological_and_Evolutionary_Perspectives
  22. https://jhr.pensoft.net/article/98260/
  23. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=22672&context=auk
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24692053/
  25. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102607
  26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/oik.02685
  27. https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/119/6/1053/2965371
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870345316301105
  29. https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article/108/6/1000/81670
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3544052
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257387916_Social_learning_drives_handedness_in_nectar-robbing_bumblebees
  32. https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/103/9/1425/146100/Realized-tolerance-to-nectar-robbing-compensation
  33. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3732/ajb.94.12.1935
  34. http://akbrody.com/Irwin%20and%20Brody%202000%20Consequences%20of%20nectar%20robbing%20for%20realized%20male%20function.pdf
  35. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.70036
  36. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3732/ajb.1600144
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468265924001987
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12348264/
  39. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.4077
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-27525-3
  41. https://esj-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1442-1984.12446
  42. https://www.uv.mx/personal/tcarmona/files/2010/08/Lara-y-Ornelas-2001.pdf
  43. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3732/ajb.1600114
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6344224/
  45. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.95.98260
  46. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.698137
  47. https://doi.org/10.1086/726036
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267150769_Long_corollas_as_nectar_barriers_in_Lonicera_implexa_interactions_between_corolla_tube_length_and_nectar_volume
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0254629909002634
  50. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0112013
  51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10265-021-01299-z
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217308709
  53. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154381
  54. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstreams/721b745b-8c32-454a-96cc-3a256725070e/download
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4786900/
  56. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/05-0118
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.